Pretending that the issue is not peculiar to the US is disingenuous.

Mad bastards. Time to love your kids more than your guns.

Pretending that the issue is not peculiar to the US is disingenuous. — Banno

This is precisely the slide I mentioned. Are mass shootings peculiar to the U.S.? Perhaps, but not mass casualty attacks, which brings us back to the strange notion that mass death by gun is somehow worse than mass death by other means.

Mad bastards. Time to love your kids more than your guns. — Banno

Ad hominem.

Are mass shootings peculiar to the U.S.? — Thorongil

Their frequency is far higher in the USA than elsewhere.

Ad hominem. — Thorongil

Indeed; eventually one realises their is something wrong with one's interlocutor. At that stage one walks away, laughing or crying.

It's bullshit, Thorongil. Your refusal to see the facts is self-serving crap.

"Few crimes are more harshly forbidden in the Old Testament than sacrifice to the god Moloch (for which see Leviticus 18.21, 20.1-5). The sacrifice referred to was of living children consumed in the fires of offering to Moloch...The gun is our Moloch."

Nirvana fallacy. That it won't stop all isn't that it won't stop some. And surely doing something is better than doing nothing? — Michael

Two can play at this game. That defensive gun use by private citizens won't stop all crime isn't that it won't stop some. Surely we ought not to ban them, then?

You're saying that because gun crime will just be replaced with non-gun crime, it isn't worth doing something about gun crime? — Michael

No, I'm saying it isn't worth stricter gun control laws. There are things that can be done about gun crime that don't involve strict gun control laws or an outright ban of guns.

If they're just to make certain types of weapons illegal, like semi-automatic rifles, — Michael

You're either displaying your ignorance here or just being crafty. To make semi-automatic rifles illegal would require making virtually all guns illegal, as most handguns are semi-automatic. Otherwise, banning certain semi-automatic rifles would be aritrary. Would-be killers would simply choose another gun, and there are several more powerful and dangerous than the AR-15 and its variants.

close loopholes in internet sales — Michael

Sure, though it depends on what they are.

increase the legal age — Michael

Maybe, but increasing the legal age doesn't always lead to a decrease or more effective use of what is being regulated.

have restrictions on risky groups (like the mentally ill) — Michael

Fully agreed. There is definitely a case to be made that Cruz's background ought to have prohibited him from acquiring a gun. He ought also to have been flagged as a mental health concern as soon as warning signs appeared. He liked to kill animals, for example, which is pretty strongly correlated in the literature with harming human beings later on.

You'll notice I didn't deny said peculiarity. As I've said before, those numbers need contextualizing. Gun crime (notice also the pivot to this topic, as opposed to mass shootings) occurs in and among highly concentrated geographic areas and demographics, so the U.S. is not actually less safe than the other countries on that list generally speaking.

It is strange that earlier in this thread so many people point to England's gun laws as an example to be followed to reduce gun violence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

The statistics seem to be showing that there is a problem with those laws application as well. — Sir2u

Not being British you would not be aware of this. But quoting the Daily Mail as a source has about the same credibility as quoting a Trump tweet.

That is not to say that claims made in such sources are necessarily wrong - although they are more often than not. But if one even slightly suspects there may be a grain of truth in them, one has to go searching for credible sources that may corroborate the claim.

Your refusal to see the facts is self-serving crap. — Banno

The facts are that anyone who disagrees with Banno on guns must love guns more than children? Find something better to do than such low quality trolling, dude. Good grief.

You're either displaying your ignorance here or just being crafty. To make semi-automatic rifles illegal would require making virtually all guns illegal, as most handguns are semi-automatic. Otherwise, banning certain semi-automatic rifles would be aritrary. — Thorongil

It's not arbitrary. Semi-automatic rifles are different to semi-automatic handguns. I don't see why one can't ban the former but not the latter. Is there a particular reason you find this problematic? Is it that you have some reason to prefer a rifle over a handgun?

Would-be killers would simply choose another gun, and there are several more powerful and dangerous than the AR-15 and its variants.

Then ban the guns that are more dangerous as well. I honestly don't understand the problem. You don't seem to mind the ban on assault rifles (or do you?), despite the fact that would-be killers can simply choose another gun.

Two can play at this game. That defensive gun use by private citizens won't stop all crime isn't that it won't stop some. Surely we ought not to ban them, then?

I'm saying that if gun control will reduce the firearm homicide rate then there's a good case for gun control. Whereas you seem to be suggesting that it's pointless if it can't cut it out entirely. That's a Nirvana fallacy. And now your objection above is a red herring.

No, I'm saying it isn't worth stricter gun control laws. — Thorongil

Why not? Surely it's better to not have someone shoot at you than to be able to return fire at someone who is?

There are things that can be done about gun crime that don't involve strict gun control laws or an outright ban of guns. — Thorongil

Such as? And why can't it be done as well? Surely it's not mutually exclusive. If your ideas will reduce gun crime and if gun control will reduce gun crime then both will reduce gun crime the most.

There comes a point at which folk ought stop talking and do something. The USA reached that point on gun control years ago.


There comes a point where all that is left is to point to the bullshit and say "that's bullshit". Thorongil, that's bullshit.

There comes a point after the facts have been submitted and analysed, yet despite the facts one's interlocutor still refuses to see them, where it is apparent that one's interlocutor is a bullshit artist.

There comes a point where all that is left is to point to the bullshit artist and say "that's a bullshit artist".

I don't really know what the difference is between those who support gun control and those who oppose it. Is it that they disagree over whether or not gun control will make the country safer, or is it that opponents of gun control believe that the right to own a gun is more important than a safer country?

At least if it's the former then there's a determinate answer; the facts can show us who is right. But if it's the latter? Then it's entirely ideological, and the argument a lost cause.

It's not arbitrary. Semi-automatic rifles are different to semi-automatic handguns. — Michael

It is arbitrary. And you're right that they're different, but different how? There are handguns more deadly than a semi-automatic rifle at the kind of close range Cruz was operating at.

Then ban the guns that are more dangerous as well. I honestly don't understand the problem. You don't seem to mind the ban on assault rifles (or do you?), despite the fact that would-be killers can simply choose another gun. — Michael

I mind because this would be a de facto ban on guns. Semi-automatic weapons (particularly handguns) are the most manufactured and purchased form of firearm. The people buying them aren't mass murderers either, so you would be confiscating the guns of nonviolent citizens, some of whom require them for self-defense, which means that you would be risking people's lives. As I say, there are trade-offs to every action chosen.

I'm saying that if gun control will reduce the firearm homicide rate then there's a good case for gun control. — Michael

And I'm saying that if defensive gun use prevents crime (which it does), then there's a good case not to adopt strict gun control.

Why not? Surely it's better to not have someone shoot at you than to be able to return fire at someone who is? — Michael

Most of the people who do the shooting that comprises gun crime don't possess their guns legally. So your plan would disarm the person being shot at while failing to address the person doing the shooting. This is why I said there are ways to reduce gun crime without introducing new laws that just take away guns from nonviolent, law-abiding citizens. One way is better enforcement and policing, i.e. enforcing the multitude of gun laws already on the books.

And why can't it be done as well? — Michael

Because that would be to unjustly punish those who've done nothing wrong.

Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur. So right back at ya, Banno the bullshitter.

Don't make the mistake of thinking my replies are for you. I doubt you could change your mind. No, they are there merely to point out to others the inadequacy of your moral position in the face of the facts that have been presented here repeatedly, and that all can see.

I doubt you could change your mind. — Banno

In fact I have. On this very subject.

I don't really know what the difference is between those who support gun control and those who oppose it. Is it that they disagree over whether or not gun control will make the country safer, or is it that opponents of gun control believe that the right to own a gun is more important than a safer country?

We already have some forms of gun control is USA. As a practical matter the most I think those who want gun control can hope for is an increase in the age that a person can purchase certain weapons. There is current legislation being introduced into the Senate by Diane Feinstein of California to raise the age to purchase certain weapons to 21. The NRA have most politicians in their pocket and they will support opposition candidates to those who come out for gun control. The amounts of money NRA invests is considerable.

The USA is 350 million population and it has a lot of guns. I don't believe that gun laws would be as effective here as they have been in other, much smaller countries. There is a long tradition of gun use in the USA's history. I think the framers of the Constitution put in the provision in our founding documents out of the fear that some manic or ultra rabble might make use of such weapons necessary. It does not seem that far fetched these days and I don't not trust our plutocratic government very far.

Not being British you would not be aware of this. — andrewk

Oh but I am British. Born in Manchester.

But did you notice the similarity of the circumstances between then and now in USA? Change of government maybe.

Would you believe something more recent maybe?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/25/knife-and-gun-rises-sharply-in-england-and-wales

fact is, every country in the world has a gun problem but none like america. no other country in the world has as many mass shootings and it is the country that promotes guns the most. if you cant see a problem you are blind. — David Solman

yES i DO SEE THAT THE PROBLEM, AND i UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS WORLD WIDE. wHAT i DON'T SEE IS WHY YOU THINK THAT aMERICANS PROMOTE GUNS. mOST OF THE PEOPLE SIMPLY PROMOTE THE RIGHT TO OWN THEM.

Sorry, I forgot to add this.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingseptember2017

I like the Guardian but I wouldn't use it as a source in a debate because, although it has enormously greater integrity than the Mail, gun enthusiasts can too easily accuse it of left bias. Whether just or not, such accusations do derail discussions. Best to get something from an academic study or a government statistics agency.

I wasn't sure what to make of the Guardian article either. Most of it was just about 'police recorded crimes' of all types, not specific to violent crime or manufactured weapons.

The second para refers to increase in gun crime of 20% over the preceding year but, for all we know, that's just part of the usual year to year variation, rather than evidence of a sustained trend. In any case, the increase would need to be in the order of thousands of per cent for Britain's per capita gun crime casualty rate to near that of the US.

I see you've just added a link to a government statistics report. Good idea!
The numbers match the Guardian report.

The gun homicide rate in England and Wales is about one for every 1 million people, according to the Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development, a multinational organization based in Switzerland. In a population of 56 million, that adds up to about 50 to 60 gun killings annually.

In the USA, by contrast, there are about 160 times as many gun homicides in a country that is roughly six times larger in population. There were 8,124 gun homicides in 2014, according to the latest FBI figures.

Source

mOST OF THE PEOPLE SIMPLY PROMOTE THE RIGHT TO OWN THEM. — Sir2u

tHERE IS NO 2D aMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN THEM; NOR IN FACT IS THERE A 2D aMENDMENT RIGHT FOR INDIVIDUALS TO HAVE THEM. dISAGREE? rEAD THE AMENDMENT AND TELL ME FROM THAT YOUR GROUNDS FOR DISAGREEMENT.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

i THINK YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT THE ONLY THING SAID HERE IS THAT A CERTAIN RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, AND WHY. (bEFORE THE cIVIL wAR, SUCH A RESTRICTION WAS UNDERSTOOD TO APPLY ONLY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE SEVERAL STATES BEING GENERALLY NOT SUBJECT TO SUCH RESTRICTIONS - WHICH CHANGED IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE cIVIL wAR).

No one I know of ever seems to argue that the 2d amendment is arguably actually silent on the subject of gun ownership. It refers only to the people (presumably the same as the preamble's, "We the People...") and well-regulated militias, and not to individuals.

The only unalienabe rights Americans have are to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these, all others are made alienable - subject to law. You can be drafted and ordered into harm's way, into battle, but no one can order you to give up your life (liberty, or pursuit of happiness).

The idea that the 2d Amendment prevents gun control is simply ignorant. First point is that there exist such laws. Second, that the Constitution is to be read as a whole, not cherry-picked. Justice Souter explains this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCxaDwOCXD8

Start at about 11:50 (the whole thing is well worth listening to).

There are fewer than 13 million firearms in circulation in Russia, compared with an estimated 300 million in the United States. That works out to about 9 guns per 100 people in Russia and closed to 100 guns per 100 people in America.

The most recent homicide statistics for Russia show that there were 21,603 killings in 2009.

A global comparison of gun related deaths by the numbers is flawed because of national and historical differences between countries.

Actually, FWIW, Michael did post a link to a Supreme Court decision which effectively ruled against the idea that individual gun ownership ought to be subjected to being part of an organised militia group (here.)

Slow down when typing, fellas. Do you not see the caps lock screwing up your messages?

Here's a great American:

You and the girl in the video are commiting the false cause fallacy. The guns aren't the only things that have changed since the founders wrote the Constitution. Our culture has changed where we glorify death and those that glorify it in their music and movies. There is also the "I want to be famous" factor where everyone has become an attention-seeker.

You are also engaging in ad hominem attacks against Thorongil, which just shows who the real bullshitter is here.

You are also engaging in ad hominem attacks against Thorongil. — Harry Hindu

Yes, I am. Thorongil chooses to ignore the facts. As, from what you have said, do you, in claiming that guns as not the cause of the deaths in your country's mass killings. Do you think the culture of Australia or Europe hasn't also changed?

Bah. A sick nation. You need people like Emma Gonzales.

Slow down when typing, fellas. Do you not see the caps lock screwing up your messages? — Thorongil

Yes I saw the problem, it was almost as prominent as a total lack of capitalization.